X-Fi and the Elite Pro: SoundBlaster's Return to Greatness
by Derek Wilson on August 30, 2005 11:59 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
Final Words
The final verdict is that the SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro is an excellent audio solution. With plenty of analog and digital I/O, the potential for improving game performance, lots of features, and better sound quality than any other consumer sound solution on the market, the SB X-Fi Elite Pro is simply impressive. Topping the performance of the Audigy 4 Pro and the Echo Gina 3G at every bit depth and sample rate, we can't help but acknowledge the superiority of the newest top-of-the-line card from Creative.The X-Fi's SRC combined with its new Audio Ring architecture alleviate Creative's past problems with sample rate conversion and intermodulation distortion. All audio sources are played with the highest clarity and quality. Playback of 24-bit / 96kHz audio is pristine even from the back of the computer. When working with lower bitrate audio, X-Fi can apply certain filters (such as the 24-bit Crystallizer) that attempt to clean up and enhance the signal. More than twice the number of hardware voices are supported in games alongside the latest in EAX Advanced HD for 3D sound. Multi-channel works perfectly, and CMSS-3D adds some advanced algorithms for HRTF, spacialization, and multiple in, multiple out up and down mixing to support any source on any speaker configuration.
At the end of the day, we were very happy with the performance of the X-Fi Elite Pro as a sound card for gaming, as part of a pro audio chain, and as the center of an entertainment system. However, we did have some complaints. Our experience with this (and all other) hardware is that audio is best played on a speaker configuration that fits the source. Creative argues that their hardware is capable of dynamically "remastering" and "remixing" audio to best fit the system at hand. We would flat out deny this claim and are shocked that Creative would even pretend that they could provide quality on par with remastered audio. Having hardware approximated the job of an audio technician in training is something that we might be able to believe, but no amount of processing will make up for a lack of data from the source. Access to all the original tracks as they were recorded at full bitrate (or analog as the case may be) gives an audio engineer infinitely more control over the final product than Creative can have with any finalized audio. That's not to say that some assistance in fitting the source to a particular setup isn't helpful in some cases. Upmixing 5.1 audio to 7.1 comes to mind as an example of an application that makes sense.
Likewise, the 24-bit Crystallizer is not something that we would leave on (or even on one setting) all the time. It is possible for the Crystallizer to clean up, brighten up, and generally make some audio files sound "better". This is especially true in the case of over-compressed or understated audio: the Crystallizer adds a punchiness and depth to these. Of course, in cases where the transients are already fully in the foreground, enabling the Crystallizer can make already punchy audio overpowering. We understand that some dynamic range is lost on 16-bit audio, but it's not always the case that hardware can determine exactly what should fill the missing bits if the final target was 24-bit rather than 16.
We are interested in the performance advantages of the 64MB of onboard RAM. Unfortunately, we don't have many games that make use of this feature, so we aren't able to talk about the real advantages here. Creative has given us some indication that they expect some very significant quality gains in games that have very little impact on the CPU and enable developers to have more freedom in how they design audio.
The only thing that we would really like to see that we don't is Dolby Digital Live (realtime Dolby 5.1 encoding for output over SPDIF to a receiver). With all the processing power available, there is no excuse for not supporting this feature, yet we have seen no mention of it from Creative. Dolby Digital Live may not be as hot a topic as it was back when NVIDIA supported the feature in their onboard SoundStorm audio solution, but we would still like to see it added for completeness (especially when even Intel's onboard solution can handle it).
The last question that we have to address is the most important. Is the SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro worth the $400 price tag? If the card is destined for a machine that will be multitasked as the centerpiece of an entertainment center, part of a gaming rig, and part of a small home studio for budding musicians, then the answer is "yes" (but only if high quality speakers and possibly a very high quality receiver and amp are to be used in conjunction with the product). The SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro is not a sound card to be taken lightly, and it really deserves to be pushed to its limits.
We really can't recommend this part to the average user. Not only are the quality and feature set far beyond what a normal computer user will need, but the extremely high quality audio components used in the construction of the card are beyond what any, but audiophiles or musicians, will care about. This really is a semi-pro card packed with consumer level features and should be treated as such.
That being said, audiophiles and musicians (who don't use a balanced audio setup) will be very pleased with this card, especially if they enjoy gaming as well as just listening. We also can't wait to get our hands on other X-Fi cards. Ranging in price from $130 to $280, the rest of the new SoundBlaster line-up look to be very compelling offers. The differences between the Elite Pro and the rest of the pack include onboard RAM, the quality of the audio components used, and the I/O options included. Our guess is that most users will be quite satisfied with the SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeMusic (the $130 card).
Creative informed us that cards should be shipping as of last week, but we still can't find them online or in stores. Even Creative's own site lists the X-Fi line up as pre-order. We will have to check into the availability of these parts as we certainly don't want the recently ATI disease ("paperlaunchitis") to spread to the rest of the computer industry.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
SDA - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
>>For listening, I generally stick with my Sony MDR-7509 headset. I also have the Sennheiser HD580 that I use to audition sound hardware. The reason I stick with the Sony gear for general listening is due to my environment. I can turn everything off when I need to do a noise test or listen closely to something, but the lab with all the computers and workstations running is not a quiet environment. I realize that open air headests will reproduce (especially) the low end in a more appropraite manner, so I do listen with them, but I know the sound a little better on the MDR-7509s as I've been using them for a long time. >>Are either of those headphones being amplified? If not, you are probably putting unfair stress on the sound card's line out, and should at least compare with and without an amp (lots of sound devices sound great if not under undue stress). Also, consider getting monitor speakers to test surround sound output.. old Minimus-7s will do if you're on that tight of a budget (no bass whatsoever, but surprisingly neutral midrange and treble for small bucks and a small room), otherwise look around.
>>I am planning on picking up the HD650 as I've heard great things about them. >>
Enh, they're not different enough from the HD580 to warrant buying if you're looking for sound test gear. Get something with a different flavor first (Grado SR-225 or Alessandro MS-2 for high-current low-impedance rock phones, AKG K501 for analytical ridiculously inefficient mid-impedance phones), and get a reasonably good amplifier (no need for audiophile BS, just something with enough balls to run a K501).
>>Doing something like a double blind subjective study on audio is difficult. People that don't know how to listen won't be any help because even if they hear a difference they won't know how to describe it very well. People who do know what they are talking about are hard to come by in volume. Don't get me wrong, we'd love to do something like this. But we just don't have any idea how to work out the logistics. Suggestions are welcome. >>
Find three different people who know what they're talking about and aren't slaves to the placebo effect. Have them test the gear in a double-blind setting.
More specific advice... look for musicians. Especially look for musicians for testing songs heavy on specific instruments: someone who plays, say, the violin will know exactly what a violin will sound.
>>Also, I appreciate the suggestion to avoid general statements about the goodness of something. It is a good suggestion even in cases where we know everything about everything in detail. There are always surprises and erring on the side of caution is the best way to go. We will be more careful in the future. >>
And, fwiw, I appreciate the maturity and responsibility one gets from AT editors. (Yes, I can give compliments too!)
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I am not sure if I want to go with active amplification. I understand that stressing the opamps on the card towards the top end of their range could adversly affect their linearity. But my impression is that spending this much money on an audio card means a listener should not have to invest in an amp to get the best quality sound. We want talk about the audio as it will be heard by our readers.Do you have a different opinion on the subject?
And thanks for the suggestions on speakers and other headsets.
SDA - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
>>I am not sure if I want to go with active amplification. I understand that stressing the opamps on the card towards the top end of their range could adversly affect their linearity. But my impression is that spending this much money on an audio card means a listener should not have to invest in an amp to get the best quality sound. We want talk about the audio as it will be heard by our readers.Do you have a different opinion on the subject? >>
The amplifiers on sound card line-outs are rarely equipped to drive headphones, especially not extremely power-hungry one. While I agree there is value in an ampless test, I also feel that an amplifier would be a good idea for pure line-out performance. A lot of us don't put any real strain on the line-outs, after all, and I'd like to see how evening the playing field a little helps various cards.
At any rate, spending this much money on (insert piece of equipment here) never entitles a listener to avoiding another link in the chain entirely. Not that headphone amps are a necessity, but hooking a $200 headphone to a line-out of a $400 sound card is a little silly and probably wouldn't yield sound as good as a lower-tier sound card and a cheap headphone amp (the things don't need to be pricey, just gutsy enough to power any normal dynamic headphone with ease).
Xentropy - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Sorry this is a bit off-topic, but you seem to know what you're talking about, and everywhere else I've asked I've gotten audiophile answers (e.g. buy this or that $2000 piece of equipment), so......What reasonably priced headphone amp(s) can you recommend for use between a soundcard and a set of HD570's?
SDA - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
The PPA and M^3 are reasonably priced, at least from a DIY perspective. At a lower price point, PIMETAs are fine.If I were you, though, I would upgrade that HD570 first-- driver upgrade (meaning speakers or headphones) is generally much more noticeable than amp or source upgrade. If you like a bass-n-treble signature, try the HD590; if you like something bassy and trebley but with midrange in the bargain, try a Grado or Alessandro. A very simple amp / 'CMoy' (buy on Head-Fi or somewhere, they're overpriced on eBay) with a decent op-amp (OPA2134PA is fine) covers a surprisingly large amount of the gap between no amp and top-end amp-- the biggest thing is taking undue stress off of the sound card's line out.
Or, you know, buy a $3000 amplifier, and line it with sound-improving rainbow foil (hur hur hur).
mindless1 - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
Personally I found an unbuffered design like a CMOY to be a more similar to a soundcard's line-out than to a Pimeta, PPA or M3... they're all fairly harsh with terrible channel separation.SDA - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
What op-amp? An unbuffered design is bound to be heavily opamp-dependent.. I've heard some that I'd prefer a Sony D-33's headphone out to, and I've heard others that are 80% of a META42. A great op-amp might be terrible in an unbuffered design for current output reasons.mindless1 - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
Just about any mid-grade or better? I find some of my favorites, like AD8610, AD843, and OPA637, all sound far better unbuffered than jellybeans like TL072 or old standards like JRC4556/8, BUT *almost* anything buffered beats them. Higher current chps like LM6171 give more current but still lack quality sound. I "almost" find completely dreadful, entirely unmusical general purpose opamps sound as good buffered as the average "good" opamps in an unbuffered configuration... and it doesn't even take much of a buffer to make that difference.This is of course keeping in mind the current limitations, they don't even sound very good at low output. IMO, a CMOY type design is only useful for higher Z cans that need a bit of a volume boost. Then again, vast difference in price too, some people have enough spare parts to crank out a CMOY on protoboard plus $10. CMOY is like a gateway drug, it only teased me onto harder habits.
SDA - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
Wow... well, I guess our ears just disagree there, especially since the AD8610 is my favorite for unbuffered. I still prefer buffered, of course, I've just always felt that an unbuffered AD8610/20 or similar CMoy-type amp covers a good chunk of the gap. Well, each to their own, I suppose, and AT editors should be looking for something higher-end anyway.mindless1 - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
Well, LOL."Audiophile" <> reasonably priced... never has and never will.
However, a ballpark $200 headamp might be a "PPA v2" custom-built with AD843 opamps rolled in. Thee are a few lists of trade builders for PPA2 or other customizable amps that you can DIY, actually tailor to your cans, or to your tastes, there is a vast gulf between gamer pseudo-audiophiles that buy Creative Labs cards with digital tricks and those who simply want cleanest analog possible and bit-perfect digi out. Wheverver you fit into the grand scheme, may dictate the optimal amp for you.
Then you'll want another amp, and more cans, and another sound card, and a DAC, and... Sorry about your wallet. ;-)